That's an interesting idea. What do you mean by its own project? A couple
of possibilities:
- Spinning off a new ASF project
- A separate Beam-governed repository (e.g. apache/beam-filesystems)
- More clearly separate it in the current build system and release
artifacts that allow it to be used independently

Personally I'd be resistant to the first two (I am a Google engineer and I
like monorepos after all), but I don't see a major problem with the last
one, except that it gives us another surface to maintain.

Brian

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 8:38 PM Chad Dombrova <chad...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is a random idea, but the whole file IO system inside Beam would
> actually be awesome to extract into its own project.  IIRC, it’s not
> particularly tied to Beam.
>
> I’m not saying this should be done now, but it’s be nice to keep it mind
> for a future goal.
>
> -chad
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 10:23 AM Pablo Estrada <pabl...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> That would be great to add, Matt. Of course it's important to make this
>> backwards compatible, but other than that, the addition would be very
>> welcome.
>>
>> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 9:41 AM Matt Rudary <matt.rud...@twosigma.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is a quick sketch of a proposal – I wanted to get a sense of
>>> whether there’s general support for this idea before fleshing it out
>>> further, getting internal approvals, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’m working with multiple storage systems that speak the S3 api. I would
>>> like to support FileIO operations for these storage systems, but
>>> S3FileSystem hardcodes the s3 scheme (the various systems use different URI
>>> schemes) and it is in any case impossible to instantiate more than one in
>>> the current design.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’d like to refactor the code in org.apache.beam.sdk.io.aws.s3 (and
>>> maybe …aws.options) somewhat to enable this use-case. I haven’t worked out
>>> the details yet, but it will take some thought to make this work in a
>>> non-hacky way.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Matt Rudary
>>>
>>

Reply via email to